On 2020-05-05 12:51:25-0400, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 11:26:40PM +0700, Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote: > > > -on: [push, pull_request] > > +on: > > + pull_request: > > + push: > > + branches: > > + - maint > > + - master > > + - next > > + - jch > > + - pu > > + - 'for-ci**' > > Should this be "for-ci/**", or are we intending for "for-ci-foo" to > work? I'd suspect anybody who uses this would use a full directory > namespace in a refspec (like "refs/heads/*:refs/heads/for-ci/*"). It > might be simpler conceptually to only support that. I made this because I saw someone mentioned that they would like to push to 'for-ci' and expect it works for them. I guess it may be better to have: - for-ci - for-ci/** > > > + tags: > > + - '**' > > + - '!**wip**' > > IMHO this "wip" match is going too far. That was the name in the example > I used, but really it could have been anything. I think we should > either: > > - just build all tags; it usually takes special effort to push them up > anyway, so a one-off "just mark this spot" tag likely wouldn't get > pushed anyway > > - just build v[0-9]*, which would catch actual releases This sounds better, just build "v[0-9]*" and ignore everything else, with this pattern, I think we don't need to advertise tag to our users. And our maintainer shouldn't worry about it, since our maintainer will (likely) only push v[0-9]* tagged code, anyway. -- Danh
